Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So basically, the guy who's crazy good at physics believes in physicalism. Go figure. Let him believe what he wants to believe.

Hawking: Heaven can't exist.

No kidding. This should be obvious.

And if you need a humorous take on something that's not actually all that funny, this is one of the best:
http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/

Yeah, it's called "Stairway to Heaven" for a reason...

::ducks::

Ill rank that up there with alot of what Bill Maher (sp?) says. Hes a smart guy, but a total donkey-cave if you disagree with him. Nothing annoys me more then people that insult others beliefs. Believe in what you want, worship what you want, thats fine with me, because it really doesnt effect me in the least. But, people that bash on others beliefs just piss me off.

I don't believe you and you are full of gak! You are stupid for having that opinion!

BrassScorpion wrote:

Hawking: Heaven can't exist.

No kidding. This should be obvious.

And if you need a humorous take on something that's not actually all that funny, this is one of the best:
http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/

Seen it, some very interesting points. But while half the time his interviews demonstrated a valid argument, the other half struck me as a bully's use of editing.

I'm in no hurry to find out what will happen when I die.

I personally think he's right.

IMO, if we die, there will be nothing and we won't be aware of it. Just like sleeping without dreams....

I think that's why I got into 40K. It provided a more plausible belief system then anything humanity has come up with so far!
'The Daemons made me do it!'

God obviously doesn't exist in the grimdark future. (just the emperor)
If those techno-anachronists can work it out (bearing in mind most of them don't even know about Chaos) why can't we?

People have been arguing about the existence of Heaven/God for thousands of years, People like Hawking (and on the other side) come along and say something as if its a fact. Its not!

There are arguments on both sides that are pretty solid, but not actually brining any factual evidence.
Its all about faith.

rodgers37 wrote:People have been arguing about the existence of Heaven/God for thousands of years...

Unless by saying "People have been arguing" you really mean that being an atheist was punishable by death until a few centuries ago then no, you're quite wrong. No such public forum for the debate on the existence of God has existed for anywhere near thousands of years.

I love it. The arrogance of religious people is brilliant.

"We've got a book that is thousand's of years old and you have to believe in what it says, you can't question it or my beliefs... unless you want to create another faction of said religion based on the fact you think you understand this book better than the other religious believers and you know what it really means."

However no matter what faction you follow you all still believe that people shouldn't question the existence of your God and take offence if not given respect.

Whereas a scientist makes a statement, and expects his peers to review it and the evidence. They will then agree with them or point out where they think the evidence is weak, wrong or can't be proved. That scientist doesn't then have a fit over this.

The fact the scientific community does this puts it way ahead of the opinions of any religious person as far as I'm concerned.

Aristotle didn't believe in God... He was around more than a few centuries ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:I love it. The arrogance of religious people is brilliant.

"We've got a book that is thousand's of years old and you have to believe in what it says, you can't question it or my beliefs... unless you want to create another faction of said religion based on the fact you think you understand this book better than the other religious believers and you know what it really means."

However no matter what faction you follow you all still believe that people shouldn't question the existence of your God and take offence if not given respect.

Whereas a scientist makes a statement, and expects his peers to review it and the evidence. They will then agree with them or point out where they think the evidence is weak, wrong or can't be proved. That scientist doesn't then have a fit over this.

The fact the scientific community does this puts it way ahead of the opinions of any religious person as far as I'm concerned.

Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.

And do you not think Atheists don't have the same view, but the other way around?
Someone i knew/know was very focal in making his point known, (this is in A Level philosophy classes), saying how stupid and idiotic religion and religious people are... The only reason there is debate is because there are two sides. And saying that one side is worse than the other..... (Ok religion used to be worse, because in certain periods you were forced to go to church etc)

rodgers37 wrote:Aristotle didn't believe in God... He was around more than a few centuries ago.

He was also viewed as a heretic for that by the Catholic Church (even though St. Thomas Aquinas apparently loved him to bits).

There's been no sort of discussion on the existence of God in the past couple of thousands of years where any potential atheists weren't at risk of execution. That kind of skews the conclusion of any such discussion when one side under that kind of threat.

Well he lived, expressing his views for other 60 years, and i believe he died naturally (unlike his teacher Plato, who did believe in God).
He may have been viewed as a heretic, but a lot of his work is still used today.

They may have been 'under threat' but that doesn't mean they didn't have a 'side'. And christians haven't ruled the entire earth forever. I'm agreeing with you to an extent, but from how i'm reading what your saying, it just seems like your implying that any atheist was immediately killed as soon as they spoke...

Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.

I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?

rodgers37 wrote:Well he lived, expressing his views for other 60 years, and i believe he died naturally (unlike his teacher Plato, who did believe in God).
He may have been viewed as a heretic, but a lot of his work is still used today.

They may have been 'under threat' but that doesn't mean they didn't have a 'side'. And christians haven't ruled the entire earth forever. I'm agreeing with you to an extent, but from how i'm reading what your saying, it just seems like your implying that any atheist was immediately killed as soon as they spoke...

Aristotle was around before Monotheism became the new thing.

Wolfstan wrote:

Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.

I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?

There not literal. (thats the word i was looking for)
Were no t supposed to believe in every word of the bible. I'm religious, and haven't even read much of the bible (and don't even go to church very often). Its not about believing and discarding writings. Its about interpreting them, and although the church can tell you what they want, and how they interpret it (some extreme sides will take it all literally, word for word as the word of God, which is what i believe the Qur'an is supposed to be).
The talking snake for example, wasn't real. Its a analogy representing sin.

Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.

I think you meant most christians who fit your view of christianity don't believe in the whole bible. The bible being the holy book of christianity it makes sense that christians beleive it or surely it's not a very good book. Most christians who follow one part but not the other do it because parts of the bible are unacceptable in todays society. Thats just bending a religion to be something it isn't to make it look more appealing.

There seems to be a lot of one sided in defence of religion. Religious people regularly attack atheist's (and other religion's) views and no one sees a problem as they are just expressing their views but an atheist does it back and everyone starts shouting. His religious view (atheism is a much of a religious view as any religion) is as valid as anyone elses.

4M2A wrote:

Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.

I think you meant most christians who fit your view of christianity don't believe in the whole bible. The bible being the holy book of christianity it makes sense that christians beleive it or surely it's not a very good book. Most christians who follow one part but not the other do it because parts of the bible are unacceptable in todays society. Thats just bending a religion to be something it isn't to make it look more appealing.

There seems to be a lot of one sided in defence of religion. Religious people regularly attack atheist's (and other religion's) views and no one sees a problem as they are just expressing their views but an atheist does it back and everyone starts shouting. His religious view (atheism is a much of a religious view as any religion) is as valid as anyone elses.

There is a lot of one sided defence in both sides. And every side is as valid as the other of course, there are some sides that are really fought against (like the Westborough baptist church, is that there name? No one seems (rightfully so in my opinion) agree with them). Both sides attack each other. I'm perfectly happy for people to not believe in God/Heaven, and i'm happy for people to take the Bible literally.

But i thought it was almost a fact that most Christians do not take the Bible literally? Its not the word of God, i didn't word it properly in my first post. But its the 'extremists' who take it word for word (or almost word for word). But most Christians take it as something to find meaning, and make moral rules. This again is something that has been argued over, amongst Christians. You can't tell a person that what they believe is wrong, because they believe it. The only fair way to do it, is to either ignore them and think to your self your right, or 'politely' put your point across. If i'm not doing that here, please tell me and i will stop. I don't want to be seen as some ignorant religious person, i'm not even very Christian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4AXOmPZ6fo

language warning ahoy.

The joys of being agnostic is that I don't have an opinion on such matters.

My view* is that we live on the most amazing planet in the galaxy (probably). What more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend 70-80 years existing on it?

(*Actually, this is Richard Dawkin's view, but I appropriated it for my own, because I rather like this particular comment of his).

Flashman wrote:The joys of being agnostic is that I don't have an opinion on such matters.

My view* is that we live on the most amazing planet in the galaxy (probably). What more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend 70-80 years existing on it?

(*Actually, this is Richard Dawkin's view, but I appropriated it for my own, because I rather like this particular comment of his).

Besides confusing me by saying you don't have an opinion then immediately offering one, I am also confused by using atheism to prove agnosticism. Could you clear this up a bit?

Can't I have it both ways? I mean if my stance is with the Ancient Alien Theorists, then the bible is a document that details encounters with aliens. Somebody cue Monkey Wrench by the Foo Fighters.

But i thought it was almost a fact that most Christians do not take the Bible literally? Its not the word of God, i didn't word it properly in my first post. But its the 'extremists' who take it word for word (or almost word for word). But most Christians take it as something to find meaning, and make moral rules. This again is something that has been argued over, amongst Christians. You can't tell a person that what they believe is wrong, because they believe it. The only fair way to do it, is to either ignore them and think to your self your right, or 'politely' put your point across. If i'm not doing that here, please tell me and i will stop. I don't want to be seen as some ignorant religious person, i'm not even very Christian

The majority don't take it literaly, but the ones who do have a strong argument that they are right. For a long time the bible has been seen as the true word of god, and only recently have people started to move away from that view. How do you choose which parts are important and which aren't. If everyone is free to choose, does that mean you can be a christian without believing in god?- e.g. you think the morals ae right but don't take the god part literaly.

4M2A wrote: For a long time the bible has been seen as the true word of god, and only recently have people started to move away from that view.

hmm.. not really. For most of Christianity's existence the Bible has never been seen as a literal, absolutist document. Huge parts of it have always been seen as metaphorical, poetical even by most of the established churches.

And whilst I am aware of sects and people who view the Bible as being 100% divinely inspired I am unaware of any group or person who says it's the word of God in the way you seem to be implying. Hence the titles of so many of the books in said tome for example.

reds8n wrote:

4M2A wrote: For a long time the bible has been seen as the true word of god, and only recently have people started to move away from that view.

hmm.. not really. For most of Christianity's existence the Bible has never been seen as a literal, absolutist document. Huge parts of it have always been seen as metaphorical, poetical even by most of the established churches.

And whilst I am aware of sects and people who view the Bible as being 100% divinely inspired I am unaware of any group or person who says it's the word of God in the way you seem to be implying. Hence the titles of so many of the books in said tome for example.

Like the book of Ezekiel? Yeah nobody takes him seriously.

I suppose perhaps if people were to elaborate on what they mean by 'literal word of God' that might help clear things up. There are a few different ways that could be taken.

4M2A wrote: How do you choose which parts are important and which aren't. If everyone is free to choose, does that mean you can be a christian without believing in god?- e.g. you think the morals ae right but don't take the god part literaly.

Never really thought of it like that, i'm not sure. You could say yes or no really. (Yes, if you really want to take the interpreting the Bible to an extreme. And no, because you could say God=Christianity....). As for chosing important and not important, i don't really know, we need someone who has read the Bible and/or goes to church every week. I go to church sometimes (when i'm in Norwich, despite being at university in the holy city of England, i haven't actually gone to church ) to really give an idea of how much 'rubbish' is in there, i've seen a few bits that are out dated. I would say that for me, i'm still not sure. I believe in God and Heaven etc, not 100% sure why, no one told me too, in fact i've probably heard more against Gods existence, but still. I might not be a 'proper' Christian at all, i probably follow some of the teachings in the Bible, as will atheists, without even really knowing. You could just use it as a slight guide of how religious people think you should live your life. (i'm really not sure what to say at the moment, might have a better answer later)

And Ahtman, how i mean't it, is the Qur'an is 'the word of God' I think it was Mohammed who wrote it down, although i may be incorrect. The Qur'an is treated with much more respect in general (for example, as school there was one copy, and the Teachers only had it to show students, know one else could touch it, out of respect). While the Bible is formed by gospels and other things (Really not remember any words i need today...) which were not claimed (i don't think) to be the word of God, but the New Testament for example has lots of Jesus' teachings, and technically Jesus is God/part of God. But these were not explicitly written down straight from Jesus' or Gods 'mouth'.

rodgers37 wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct. Most sensible christians can take a (i've forgotten the word i want to use), well a reading of the bible, and work out what it 'means' not that every word is true, because you don't have to look too deeply to find stupid things like stoning women for disobeying their husbands or something like that.

I know it's a blunt and generic way of pointing it out, but what a kop out. On the one hand we are supposed to believe in God due to the bible and the words written it, but on the other hand you get to say things like "Only silly people think every word of the bible is correct". How do know which writings to believe and which to discard. If you can dispute whether the bible actually says that drinking alcohol is a sin, how can you take it as fact that there was a garden of Eden and a talking snake?

There not literal. (thats the word i was looking for)
Were no t supposed to believe in every word of the bible. I'm religious, and haven't even read much of the bible (and don't even go to church very often). Its not about believing and discarding writings. Its about interpreting them, and although the church can tell you what they want, and how they interpret it (some extreme sides will take it all literally, word for word as the word of God, which is what i believe the Qur'an is supposed to be).
The talking snake for example, wasn't real. Its a analogy representing sin.

Well then isn't it possible that Jesus is a metaphor as well? Why should the part about Jesus be taken literally?

Jesus existed... Wether or not he was actually the Son of God is another thing..
I never said he was anyway, i was stating that is what a lot of the New Testament is based on. So if Jesus isn't God/Son of, then the New Testament is a lie